GROK
Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig – Perceptive Prognostication? News Media and Predictive Analyses
Israel’s elections are a little over a couple of months away (so are America’s). The media are full of who’s ahead, who’s behind, and what all this would mean for Israel. Not to mention all the news prognostications on other various topics. Are they something you can trust?
You probably have a favorite news analyst (or a few). Part of what commentators do is to try and predict the future course of the issue at hand. In fact, if you compare newspapers from the pre-internet era to present ones, the difference is striking. Back then, almost all of the front page was taken up by “hard news”: relatively straightforward reports as to what happened yesterday. Today, by contrast, it’s almost all commentary, analysis, and prognostication: “what does today’s news mean, and where’s it going?”
But how accurate is such futurizing? More to the point for you as a reader/listener/viewer, how (un)successful is your favorite analyst-predictor? After all, why bother reading someone whose success rate is lower than a university passing grade of 60? Maybe there’s someone else who does a much better job than your favorite “journalist”.
These days, there’s a relatively easy way to find out: ask AI! Of course, its judgment can’t be perfectly accurate for the simple reason that “predictions” in the sociopolitical sphere are not like ball games with a clear winner and loser (or a tie in some sports). But an AI analysis – especially if prompted to explain its assessment – can be highly informative, even eye-opening.
To show you what this entails, I asked Google’s Gemini the following about arguably the world’s most famous news commentator/predictor these days. My prompt went like this: Three-time Pulitzer Prize winner New York Times commentator Thomas Friedman makes many predictions in his column. Over the last ten years, what percent of his predictions: 1) came true; 2) proved to be wrong; 3) were partly true and partly wrong? Provide a few examples of each.
I have edited Gemini’s reply here for the sake of brevity:
Friedman is a “big picture” thinker, fond of metaphors like “the world is flat”. His forecasting record is a fascinating mix of prescient warnings and audacious optimism that failed to materialize. A rough estimation of his prediction track record over the last ten years:
- 30-35% Came True (The Prescient): Often on technology, climate, and general globalization trends.
- 35-40% Proved to be Wrong (The Follies): Often on geopolitics, specific foreign leader actions, or the immediate pace of change.
- 25-30% Partly True/Partly Wrong (The Mixed): These are his “Yes, but…” predictions.
Friedman’s strongest predictions often lie at the intersection of technology, climate change, and globalization: 1) The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital connectivity; 2) The “4th Industrial Revolution” and climate change; 3) The need for “smart” infrastructure.
Friedman’s mistakes often stem from excessive optimism about the rapid adoption of democracy or a failure to grasp the resilience of local political cultures and authoritarian leaders: 1) Underestimating Netanyahu’s resilience (2015-2021); 2) Miscalculating the U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem (2017-2018) that he predicted would lead to “severe repercussions and a total collapse of regional stability”; 3) “Arab Spring” optimism about democratic shifts in the Arab world and his general “tilt” theory (nations were tilting towards freedom).
Mixed are his predictions that are often correct on the trend but wrong on the timing or the intensity: 1) China’s “crisis” and economic slowdown; 2) Russia as a gradually challenging power vis-à-vis Europe through indirect means; 3) Trump and the U.S.-China trade war, correctly asserting that his trade policies would not effectively bringing jobs back to America, but wrong in predicting an immediate loss of U.S. global competitiveness.
**********
Interestingly, the AI response explained Friedman’s mixed record as a “big picture” person focusing on global trends, but who often overlooked small, annoying local details such as culture, history, and individual choice. In short, Friedman seems to be a good “systems observer” but a weak “political scientist” – quite good as a futurist regarding technology, but a shaky predictor of foreign leadership behavior.
Does all this make Friedman a great, middling, or poor analyst and prognosticator? My answer: compared to whom? How well do other commentators do? More relevant for you personally, how well do(es) your favorite columnist(s) perform on this score? If you found your family General Practitioner sporadically rendering the wrong diagnosis, wouldn’t you switch to another doctor? Conversely, if s/he is almost always correct, wouldn’t you recommend your physician to other family members and friends?
So go ahead and try this with your preferred columnists by way of your favorite AI program. In fact, just as with doctors, ask for a second opinion – from a different AI you tend to use (Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, ChatGPT, et al). If the two pretty much agree, you’ve received the real picture regarding your favorite news analyst(s). But if these two AIs disagree, then… they need to be checked as well! You should then ask other AIs to provide analyses of your favorite AI’s successes and failures. And if all this is too confusing, try something “revolutionary”: read the news and make up your own mind as to what it all means and where it’s heading. In short, ever so often try skipping the media’s “prognostications.”
As for predicting the outcome of Israel’s election, wait until Sept. 8 when all the parties have had to officially finalize their registration (or combine with other parties). Until then, today’s “results” won’t be much better than crystal ball foretelling.
